Credit agreements in Scotland from 1st Decemeber 2009

[jamielad75]

Court rules amended before they come into force

 

13 Nov 09

New Act of Sederunt deletes procedural requirement in actions under Consumer Credit Act

 

 

New procedural rules affecting some actions in the sheriff court have been amended before they come into force.

 

The Act of Sederunt (Sheriff Court Rules) (Miscellaneous Amendments) 2009 includes provisions amending the four principal sets of sheriff court rules so as to include a requirement that in proceedings relating to a regulated agreement within the meaning of section 189(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the pursuer requires to lodge a copy of the agreement when presenting the initial writ or summons.

Those provisions were to come into effect on 1 December 2009. Now another Act, the Act of Sederunt (Amendment of the Act of Sederunt (Sheriff Court Rules) (Miscellaneous Amendments) 2009) 2009, signed by the Lord President yesterday, amends the first Act with effect from 30 November, so as to remove that requirement.

Instead, the initial writ or statement of claim shall include an averment that such an agreement exists, and details of the agreement.

It is understood that a subcommittee of the Sheriff Court Rules Council is to consider the matter further and make recommendations to the Council.

 

Too good to be true it seems eh???

 

An averment??...i.e..an emphatic declaration?...Whats more emphatic than the original agreement??...honestly...swines!!!

Edited November 17, 2009 by jamielad75

[jamielad75]

Looks like it...An amendment to the amendment??...i know go figure!!...makes you wonder what possible arguement their representatives could have put forward at that meeting on the 6th of November that was strong enough to suggest it unnecessary to attatch the original agreement to the writ or summons...And who says the Law was seperate from the State eh??

[jamielad75]

Exactly Helen.....When you have been issued with a writ or summons you have 4 options...1..admit liability for the claim and settle it with the pursuer right away...or 2..admit liability for the claim and make written application to pay by instalments or by deferred lump sum...or 3..admit liability for the claim and attend court to make application to pay by instalments or deferred lump sum...or 4..dispute the claim and attend at court..

Now note the first 3 options...admit liability, admit liability, admit liability....chances are the majority of people who receive this court form will opt for one of these options in attempt to avoid the court room...infact, as i stated in another post..were it not for the Ida`s the Rory32s and the Monty2007s of this world ..i too may have been one of them..so obviously this plays into the dca`s hands...up till now they didnt have to present the original agreement to get this far...hoping that you or me would choose options 1 2 or 3.......utilising the laws of the land as a form of bully boy tactics...its only when you choose option 4 and defend the action that they have to start proving things....i know...disgusting!!..so it was hoped this amendment would have prevented that...but what do you know...its as good as been overturned!!...still as SeriouslyFedUp says...we have to stand up to them...and i think more of us will...Peace and love!!